I have found this website and forum of assistance in understanding some of the issues:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=11794
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=11794
Marriage Equality
- Thread starter Jets
- Start date
- Status
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
hahaha wow
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
As a christian who supports same-sex marriage, I can't see any good reason why we as a society should deny gay couples the right to name their relationship marriage.
Just a couple of points I'd make:
1. I always find it funny that the church wants to claim marriage. Especially churches that were born out of the Reformation. Here's what one of the largest historical figures in Christian history had to say about the church and marriage - Martin Luther
2. From a Human Rights position, there is very real possibility that should same-sex marriage laws be passed then pastors, churches and religious leaders would be forced to conduct same-sex marriages against their beliefs. This is not enough for me to say that we shouldn't give same-sex couples the same rights but I think it is something that should be more carefully thought out.
3. I don't think that a lot of churches and christians are opposed to gay marriage. They are opposed to gay. For many of these religious people and organisations, homosexuality is a moral wrong and an abhorrent sin in the eyes of God. I think they simply will never see gay marriage as anything less than the gradual decline of our moral standards as a society. No amount of reason or logic can argue with that, something needs to change in their hearts.
Just a couple of points I'd make:
1. I always find it funny that the church wants to claim marriage. Especially churches that were born out of the Reformation. Here's what one of the largest historical figures in Christian history had to say about the church and marriage - Martin Luther
"Marriage is a civic matter. It is really not, together with all its circumstances, the business of the church.” It is so only when a matter of conscience is involved. " (“What Luther Says” CPH 1959, Vol. II, page 885)
“No one can deny that marriage is an external, worldly, matter, like clothing and food, house and property, subject to temporal authority, as the many imperial laws enacted on the subject prove.” Vol. 46: page 265
“We asked him [Martin Luther] what pastors should do in marriage cases, whether we can with a good conscience stay away from these troublesome things. He replied, ‘It is my advice that we should by no means take this yoke upon ourselves. First, we have enough work in our proper office. Second, marriage is outside the church, is a civil matter, and therefore should belong to the government. Third, these cases have no limits, extend to the height, the breadth, and the depth, and produce many offenses that bring disgrace to the gospel.
. . . Only in cases of conscience should pastors give counsel to godly people. Controversies and court cases we leave to lawyers and consistories.
Dr. Kilian wished to impose on us ministers the hearing and examination of cases, after which we should await the decisions of the lawyers. I was against this and suggested that the lawyers hear the cases and look to us for decisions. Master Philip persuaded Master Cellarius and me that for the time being we should serve our lacerated churches in such cases.’” (LW Vol. 54: Page 363)
“I feel that judgments about marriages belong to the jurists. Since they make judgments concerning fathers, mothers, children, and servants, why shouldn’t they also make decisions about the life of married people? When the papists oppose the imperial law concerning divorce, I reply that this doesn’t follow from what is written, ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder.” (LW Vol. 54 page 66)
“Here I want to close and leave this matter for now, and, as I did above, advise my dear brothers, the pastors and clergy, to refuse to deal with marriage matters as worldly affairs covered by temporal laws and to divest themselves of them as much as they can. Let the authorities and officials deal with them, except where their pastoral advice is needed in matters of conscience, as for example when some marriage matters should come up in which the officials and jurists had entangled and confused the consciences, or else perhaps a marriage had been consummated contrary to law, so that the clergy should exercise their office in such a case and comfort consciences and not leave them stuck fast in doubt and error.” (Vol. 46 Page 317-18)
2. From a Human Rights position, there is very real possibility that should same-sex marriage laws be passed then pastors, churches and religious leaders would be forced to conduct same-sex marriages against their beliefs. This is not enough for me to say that we shouldn't give same-sex couples the same rights but I think it is something that should be more carefully thought out.
3. I don't think that a lot of churches and christians are opposed to gay marriage. They are opposed to gay. For many of these religious people and organisations, homosexuality is a moral wrong and an abhorrent sin in the eyes of God. I think they simply will never see gay marriage as anything less than the gradual decline of our moral standards as a society. No amount of reason or logic can argue with that, something needs to change in their hearts.
FiveStarStu
Bill McLean (32)
My theory: Marriage has two meanings.
The act of marriage under law is a social union or legal contract that recognises two people as a couple, and offers the relative rights and responsibilities as a result (whoa, alliteration).
The act of marriage in the Catholic Church is a sacrament that recognises two people as a couple under God.
I have no issue whatsoever with the legal act of marriage being extended to same-sex couples. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, and fully support any avenues to make it happen.
The proviso would be that an exemption be made in the Equal Opportunities Act, which would remove religions from obligation to perform the sacramental act of marriage when it did not agree with their traditions.
Simples.
The act of marriage under law is a social union or legal contract that recognises two people as a couple, and offers the relative rights and responsibilities as a result (whoa, alliteration).
The act of marriage in the Catholic Church is a sacrament that recognises two people as a couple under God.
I have no issue whatsoever with the legal act of marriage being extended to same-sex couples. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, and fully support any avenues to make it happen.
The proviso would be that an exemption be made in the Equal Opportunities Act, which would remove religions from obligation to perform the sacramental act of marriage when it did not agree with their traditions.
Simples.
Karl
Bill McLean (32)
You seem to be the odd man out in this discussion big guy, so using your "if you act like this on a rugby field" analogy, I'm not the one with the problem.
Karl
Bill McLean (32)
Lol. Yeah but that thread is massive and infinitely more complex than this little chat and it's a genuine pain in the arse to have to go back and find detailed scientific rebuttal in amongst a few thousand posts.
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
big guy aye ohhh getting all upset are we
(what was that call again? harden up buttercup) i seem to be, but im fine with that i have my opinion and they have theirs thats totally fine. but what has that got to do with my analogy? i was saying if you run your mouth and act as if your a all knowing king whilst on the field youd get sat on your ass. remember first stage is accepting you have a problem cheers keyboard warrior
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
big guy aye ohhh getting all upset are we
cheers keyboard warrior
My Dad could beat your Dad up though........
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
hey you started it by belittling other people because of thir veiw im just giving as good as i get, notice i havent had a crack at anyone else despite their similar views to you?
and why the hell would i bother having a discussion with you, youve proven you cant have one, im happy to discuss with other posters but again youve shown you cant play nice so why should i bother?
i was simply pointing out your behaviour and relating it to a real life situation in the hope you may stop and think "hey i wouldnt actually say this to someone in this way cause its a crap way to talk to someone and i probably would get sat on my ass if i talked to the wrong person that way", clearly didnt work aye keyboard warrior
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
apologies i was writing my last post when you posted yours so didnt see it, my bad
Karl
Bill McLean (32)
Righto then.
So, Same Sex Marriage.
Listen up Gay People - You can have a piece of paper, but you can't call it a marriage because a special interest group feel that their adoption of the practise gives them an exclusive right to the term and/or the correct definition of the word excludes all but a man and a woman and/or your homosexual relationship is sinful and abhorred by God and/or the word can't apply to you because you can't independently procreate and/or to let you call it a marriage threatens the institution of the Family Unit and will lead to the moral decay of society and/or it will mess up children brought into these relationships (please, think of the children) and/or the Bible says so.
Besides, some people who can't differentiate between religious ceremony and legal validity might feel that their normal, heterosexual union sanctified by their Church of choice is somehow devalued, mocked or threatened because you can call your obviously lesser and abnormal union by the same term and we need to consider how they might feel about being told that it's wrong to deny your civil rights and reasonable expectation of equality and freedom from discrimination. Don't ruffle any feathers in your struggle for these basic recognitions now will you. Tread most carefully.
So, Same Sex Marriage.
Listen up Gay People - You can have a piece of paper, but you can't call it a marriage because a special interest group feel that their adoption of the practise gives them an exclusive right to the term and/or the correct definition of the word excludes all but a man and a woman and/or your homosexual relationship is sinful and abhorred by God and/or the word can't apply to you because you can't independently procreate and/or to let you call it a marriage threatens the institution of the Family Unit and will lead to the moral decay of society and/or it will mess up children brought into these relationships (please, think of the children) and/or the Bible says so.
Besides, some people who can't differentiate between religious ceremony and legal validity might feel that their normal, heterosexual union sanctified by their Church of choice is somehow devalued, mocked or threatened because you can call your obviously lesser and abnormal union by the same term and we need to consider how they might feel about being told that it's wrong to deny your civil rights and reasonable expectation of equality and freedom from discrimination. Don't ruffle any feathers in your struggle for these basic recognitions now will you. Tread most carefully.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Well when people make those statements I search the actual scientific literature to see if it is indeed an accepted part of the field. So the least people can do is use the search function on G&GR. But usually when I ask it's because I know the literature says the opposite anyway, and I just want to see what excuses come up tbh.
Lior
Herbert Moran (7)
I think society operates better when governments enable laws which support monogamous relationships. Marriage supports stability and binds together couples. I understand that marriage has been weakened in many ways over the last few years with higher divorce rates and Britney Spears to name a few. But we need to encourage good, loving and stable relationships. Gay marriage enfranchises gays into an institution which so desperately needs strengthening.
To say that anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is homophobic is nonsense. I know quite a few people who have this thought and they are far from homophobic, despite our disagreements they see it as a fragile institution where it may weakened with change.
It certainly doesn't make them homophobic.
Gay marriage is a great thing which time has truly come. I think both sides of politics should realise this and come together to at least support a conscience vote on the issue so it isn't used as a political tool to show how in touch with christian values you are.
To say that anyone who doesn't support gay marriage is homophobic is nonsense. I know quite a few people who have this thought and they are far from homophobic, despite our disagreements they see it as a fragile institution where it may weakened with change.
It certainly doesn't make them homophobic.
Gay marriage is a great thing which time has truly come. I think both sides of politics should realise this and come together to at least support a conscience vote on the issue so it isn't used as a political tool to show how in touch with christian values you are.
Saying you aren't homophobic but don't support gay marriage is a massive contradiction.
You might not be explicitly stating you don't hate gay people but what you are saying is what I have over here, they can't have because they are gay. That is discrimination, no matter which way you try to spin it hence homophobic.
This is often called the I'm Can't Be Homophobic I Have A Gay Friend defence.
You might not be explicitly stating you don't hate gay people but what you are saying is what I have over here, they can't have because they are gay. That is discrimination, no matter which way you try to spin it hence homophobic.
This is often called the I'm Can't Be Homophobic I Have A Gay Friend defence.
I think this is the essential point, it just comes down to how polically to implement it. Personally I reckon they should just take the Marriage Act and search and replace,'Marriage' with 'Civil Union' and amend the definitions.
And in a few years remove the Marriage Act
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
Bowside
Peter Johnson (47)
Quite simply, in this day and age, I think that anyone who actively fights against gay marriage because it is against their personal beliefs, is an A grade fuckwit.
Gay Marriage affects nobody but the two people getting married. I don't think government should infringe on peoples civil liberties because some lobby groups don't like gay people.
Gay Marriage affects nobody but the two people getting married. I don't think government should infringe on peoples civil liberties because some lobby groups don't like gay people.
- Status